Why Sam Wants to Ban Guns

Posted in the Chicago Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of180
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
May 5, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"For a conceal carry you might need to pass a gun safety class, but I maintain that human nature guarantees that the people who are *most* dangerous are those who own a weapon, feel threatened, and carry the gun *without getting the conceal carry license*, figuring they're just going to carry it for a day or 2 while whatever situation is taken care of. This is a function of human nature. It's too late to get the permit when they feel threatened and they are going to figure that the shot of them getting caught carrying the weapon is slim, unless they have to use it and that if they have to use it, they'd rather be alive tyvm. If that even matters since their intention is more likely to be to threaten with it, not to actually shoot it.
THAT person is the one most likely to accidentally shoot someone's foot off. Due to nothing more than lack of competent training with their weapon.
There is too much gun violence that is "first time offender" by "previously law-abiding citizen" for me to stand here and say "oh! the system works fine! all law-abiding citizens maintain their law-abiding standing and this is rarely a problem!"
There is NO SUCH THING as a perfectly law-abiding citizen who has never broken a single law. We all do it in little ways where we determine the risk is worth it. Jaywalking, a red light that we took a shot on being able to make it while it was yellow, curfews, the day that separating the recycling is too much of a pain, taking an extra week to renew the registration on our car because we just couldn't get to the garage, so we drive around with an expired inspection sticker. Ordering from out of state and not declaring the purchase to avoid paying sales tax. That's now a closed loophole with new laws about when the sales tax is collected.
There are far too many loopholes in terms of background checks being performed AND what information is included in such a check.
Gun registries? Really? Please explain to me what gun registries are in place that will allow a law enforcement official to look up and identify what weapons a person owns? As a matter of practice in every state? Seriously. Prove to me that they exist and I'll drop that objection."
Okay, and you replied at various points:

"And *I* maintain the people who are MOST dangerous are criminals who don't obey gun laws in the first place."

This is what you wrote. Please indicate where I said that the most dangerous people aren't criminals, when taken in the full context of what I wrote.

"WRONG. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive rap sheets."

Please indicate where I wrote that anything that contradicted this.

"So? Are those people more likely to go on shooting sprees?"

Please indicate where I wrote anything that said I was talking about a shooting spree, and that this is what I am concerned with reducing.

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
May 5, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
No. Didn't realize that was the point.
...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio...
Sure, it's always the point. You have to weigh the risk factor of what you're dealing with and do your best to mitigate the possible threats. How much you do depends on how high the risk factor is. Monitoring does happen in situations where it's considered that there's a high possibility of speech that is dangerous. There's a whole lot of attention spent scanning for what speech might be dangerous and warrant more attention.

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it in the morning when I'm a bit more awake.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
May 6, 2013
 
1 "law-abiding" until ....
Does indeed hold water. Your trying to take an exception to the rule and say the entire rule is false.
Let's spin it around.
There are no safe drivers. Sure their all safe until their first DWI and take out an entire family by driving the wrong way on the freeway.

In general, most drivers are safe, and in general most gun owners are responsible. The fact that there are unsafe drivers and irresponsible gun owners does not invalidate that statement.

2 argument for ownership of machine ...
Why is a reason necessary? Why do I or anyone, have to prove a need to own one. The fact that it is legal and available for sale is all the reason I need to get one.

Why does a person need a car that can go 180MPH? The speed limit is at most 70, so there really is no need for a person to be allowed to purchase such a thing. Do you agree that since such horsepower is excessive and unnecessary that they should be banned?

3 to resist background checks... I agree with background checks. If the law says that a felon cannot purchase a weapon then a background check is the best way to verify that. Now, how do we make that available to private sales? Maybe the buyer should have to provide proof to the seller, after all there is still the identity theft potential. Or, as in my case I can just show my CC Permit and be on my merry way.

4 registering your weapon? You've nothing to hide, right?
Wrong! Using the nothing to hide mentality is the oldest cop trick in the book. "Can I search your car? You have nothing to hide right?" "Mind if I look around in your house? You have nothing to hide right" It is exactly that flawed logic that they have laws against unwarranted searches. An hones citizen does not have to prove they have nothing to hide.

5 "Checks and registries won't eliminate....
Who says this? You will never eliminate gun violence, so I think your making that quote up to support your argument. I say that registries will do nothing to address sandy hook or Colorado. So before you do some knee jerk reaction and make my life miserable, prove to me how it will prevent those things.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
May 6, 2013
 
So if the media gets the list and prints it in their paper or online you are fine with that? The media is in the business to sell news and printing such lists is just that.
animaniactoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pardon general public is what I meant in terms of media, as what the media has access to via Freedom of Information act is same as what public has access to and was responding to your specific question about the previous publishing incident.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
May 6, 2013
 
Whats your point? An Axe can kill a person or a tree, which one was it designed to do? Does it really matter? No it does not, not to the person getting killed.
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>What a weak and tired *argument*! Guns are designed to kill.
Cars are transportation.
I can run someone over with a car and kill them but, no car has ever been designed or made with killing in mind.
Guns, while primarily designed to kill animals and people, can be used safely in competitions that don't result in killing but, that's not how and why they came to be.
Apples are yummy. The trees that grow them are not.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
May 6, 2013
 
Wrong, Just like weapons are refined for their purpose so are cars.
Better fuel efficiency, safety, annimities....
You are missing the point of why refinements are made to either one to begin with....Money.

Airbags? only Volvo had them, and you paid thru the nose to get them, but people saw the value and paid the coin. Now demand has made them standard. Same is true with making a better weapon. It's really just building a better mousetrap.
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! Guess what? My car is just sitting there in it's little parking space, hasn't hurt a thing either.
Cars and guns are just instruments, tools even, and they are both incredibly useful and dangerous. We try to mitigate the damage a car accident can cause but we take none when it comes to guns. In fact we try to make them more efficient at killing people, and killing anything should not be taken so lightly or made so easy.
You know, that commandment, I think it might even the first one, thou shalt not kill?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
May 6, 2013
 
Gun dealers at gun shows must follow all federal regulations and state requirements of the state hosting the show.

Private sales are the only people exempt.

animaniactoo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more than just private sale, it's also gun shows and more in terms of states that have looser requirements. And whatever transactions transpire - there is no "reporting" that goes on. Businesses are required to keep the bill of sale, but they keep it, the ATF and other law enforcement bureaus do not. Most of the background checks can't check for things that would be higher alert things - like somebody who is mentally ill and regularly non-compliant. As it stands now, there is nobody to report that to in terms of removing a distance weapon from that person's hands.
In terms of me and risk - I did not say that I pose a significant risk, I stated that I pose *a* risk, and therefore my previous question had been about determining who might be statistically likely to pose *more* risk and why. However, I do pose a higher significant risk than other gun owners might because I have little to no experience with guns, and until I have that training, I am *more* likely to misuse such a weapon and harm people I have no intention of harming.
This is one of the things that I think is wrong with the gun regulations that we currently have - I believe that gun safety should be taught in schools from elementary grades up (the same way we teach about drugs and sex and other things that can be great but pose significant risks if you are uninformed about them), and I believe that you should need to pass a licensing exam to prove that you are familiar with the particular style of weapon you wish to purchase, and can use it with a decent amount of accuracy.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
May 6, 2013
 
1 Done, you have to go to a gun store to purchase a gun. Private sales excluded.

2 Done, Its called a home owners policy, or failing that Lawsuit.

3 Done, Its already being done.

4 See #2 above, and NO you dont need a license to own a gun, nor should you. It is a right, not a privilege.

5 To what end? How does doing this prevent sandy hook? Just feel good legislation and a nifty new tax.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
I think background checks are useful but not very effective.
The Chicago papers often have reports of arrests of felons in possession of handguns. They got them through theft or straw buyers. A background check is useless.
Some states, most notably New York, have firearm owners id lists as public data. Recall that news paper that published eh addresses and a map of all the gun license holders in a certain area. I read there was one breaking and entering attributable to someone using that map as a shopping list, but only one. The newspaper apologized and I believe fired the editor who chose to publish the list .
A registration list does not screen out the James Holmes types of mental patients . Even in his grad school applications there was reported wide divergence among admissions committees about the man's stability and danger.
My suggestion is to put the onus on the gun manufacturer.
1. Every first sale of a gun can only be made to a person who has personally appeared for and passed a training class.
2.Part of the original sales price must include a liability policy to cover, at a minimum medical bills cause by that gun.
3. Every gun must be fired and its ballistics signature kept on record like a fingerprint.
4.Every gun owner must maintain insurance and a license and have it updated every specified period of years like license plates-- and it must be done in person not on line.
5. Sales and transfers of guns have to be recorded. Many states have this I am told but exclude transfers among family member. When you transfer to a family member, eh responsibility for ensuring safe and legal use stays on eh person of record who bought the gun. That makes Uncle Charlie responsible to see that Johnny knows what he is doing both with the Cricket rifle purchased for a 4 year old or the Glock given as 40 year brthday gift.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
May 6, 2013
 
What is your point? Mutt never said anything about knives other than they can kill.
Oh, and seems blade size does not matter, the pilots on 911 will killed with box cutters.

So, limiting blade size on the sale of knives is just another example of feel good legislation that does absolutely zero to address the reason the rule was made.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
There are laws about the type of blade you can carry, or don't you know about that?
(shaking head) While there is not background checks, there are laws about knives.
"The laws in Illinois regarding carrying knives are a little confusing and vague, but generally you're permitted to carry a knife with a blade up to 3" without any hassle. Having a knife in your possession while committing a crime, whether or not the knife is being used in the crime, will be grounds for a charge of carrying a dangerous weapon to be added on to the charges related to the crime itself.
Within the city of Chicago, and perhaps other cities, the blade length limit is 2.5" rather than 3".
Switchblades of any kind, defined as being able to be opened without touching the blade by means of a button or release on the handle, are illegal in most states, including Illinois.
(720 ILCS 5/24-1,2 States that there is NO limit to a 3" blade length, but rather knives that are either switchblade or ballistic (propelled blade) in possession commits the offense of unlawful use of a weapon. A knife blade that is thrust open by thumb on the blade itself and not on the handle is not in this category and is therefore able to be longer than 3") 720 ILCS 5/Article 33A states that "Armed with a dangerous weapon" means that you are carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3". This in itself is not a crime, but you commit armed violence only when committing a felony with this weapon."

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
May 6, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
Wrong, Just like weapons are refined for their purpose so are cars.
Better fuel efficiency, safety, annimities....
You are missing the point of why refinements are made to either one to begin with....Money.
Airbags? only Volvo had them, and you paid thru the nose to get them, but people saw the value and paid the coin. Now demand has made them standard. Same is true with making a better weapon. It's really just building a better mousetrap.
<quoted text>
Have you ever head of thre Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
May 6, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
1 Done, you have to go to a gun store to purchase a gun. Private sales excluded.
2 Done, Its called a home owners policy, or failing that Lawsuit.
3 Done, Its already being done.
4 See #2 above, and NO you dont need a license to own a gun, nor should you. It is a right, not a privilege.
5 To what end? How does doing this prevent sandy hook? Just feel good legislation and a nifty new tax.
<quoted text>
Really? I don't think so.
There's no law that you have to have a homeowners policy. Lawsuits don't protect anyone and we don't need more lawsuits clogging up the court.
I think there is a general disagreement with your #4. You are NOT the militia no matter what you think.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
May 6, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
What is your point? Mutt never said anything about knives other than they can kill.
Oh, and seems blade size does not matter, the pilots on 911 will killed with box cutters.
So, limiting blade size on the sale of knives is just another example of feel good legislation that does absolutely zero to address the reason the rule was made.
<quoted text>
The Mutt, as you call him, was saying there were no laws on knives. There are.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
May 6, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
What is your point? Mutt never said anything about knives other than they can kill.
Oh, and seems blade size does not matter, the pilots on 911 will killed with box cutters.
So, limiting blade size on the sale of knives is just another example of feel good legislation that does absolutely zero to address the reason the rule was made.
<quoted text>
I don't know about you but I like my chances with a box cutter over a machete. Both could kill you but so could a pen stabbed in you.

How far you want to take this?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
May 6, 2013
 
Why do the police need to know what weapons I posses? It does not make them or anyone else any safer.

What is the purpose of this registry?
animaniactoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun registries? Really? Please explain to me what gun registries are in place that will allow a law enforcement official to look up and identify what weapons a person owns? As a matter of practice in every state? Seriously. Prove to me that they exist and I'll drop that objection.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
May 6, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun control advocates seem to ignore the fact that gun crimes are highest in areas with the strictest gun laws. They for some reason think more gun control is the answer, yet can't explain why.
The gun violence in Chicago is directly related to gang activity. Everybody and their mama has a gun because the feel unsafe (because everybody and their mama has a gun). People who never intend to actually shot somebody carry guns for intimidation purposes and when the person whom they intend to intimidate with the gun also has a gun, well, then they have to either put up or shut up and people get killed.

This does not seem to be the polite society that you speak of if everybody is armed.

WBEZ was talking about this the other afternoon. I'll post the link, but it's audio...

http://www.wbez.org/programs/afternoon-shift/...

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
May 6, 2013
 
No, but they are the exact same type of questions that sam was saying that gun owners spout.
Since it does not address drive by shooting, lets not do it.
Since it does not address domestic violence, lets not do it.
Since it does not address road rage, lets not do it.

Since it is not 100% foolproof, lets ignore the 90% that is does address.

Oh, and btw, if you knew that everybody in a crowd had a gun, would you fire into that crowd?

If you knew your wife had a gun, would you slap her?

If you know the other driver had a gun, would you really be a jerk and try to piss him off?

SO, yes, more guns are better, even in your scenarios.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
That wouldn't address the "collateral damage" of drive by shootings where extra or wrong people are hit. There is a lot of that in Chicago.
It wouldn't address domestic violence in the home.
If I gave you permission to carry a gun in your waistband, would that stop road rage?
These are not snarky questions, BTW.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
May 6, 2013
 
Why? Cops go after criminals, not honest peeps, and the criminals are not going to tell the cops how many and what type of weapons they have. Its a nonsensical argument. Cops are taught to assume everybody they encounter is armed. They dont need a list.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>That's easy. For the same reason firemen need to know what combustibles may be in a building to which they are responding, cops need to know if they are answering a call at a location with a known cache of weapons.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
May 6, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
Silencers are illegal.
"GOODWYN: Well, if you've never been to an NRA convention, it's amazing and fascinating. As you walk around, you realize this is a culture. It's a way of life. There's every kind of weapon imaginable, but there's also scopes, high-powered binoculars, clothes, display cases, ammunition the size of your hand and silencers. I did a double take on that one. But as the big sign said, silencing is not a crime, at least in some states. You can drop several thousand dollars in an hour, no sweat."

I heard this as I was typing my original post on Friday.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/03/180900101/thous...

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
May 6, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
So if the media gets the list and prints it in their paper or online you are fine with that? The media is in the business to sell news and printing such lists is just that.
<quoted text>
No, that was a clarification of a previous post. In the previous post I said that specifics should be limited to law enforcement in terms of availability and general stats (i.e. X number of people in Johnson County own handguns/hold a license to own a handgun) is what would be available to public/media.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
May 6, 2013
 
Yes I have, it deals with the absolute minimum safety requirements, and I dont think are bags are one of them. If they are now, then the rules have been modified.
All guns are required to have safety switch, and trigger guards, so I still dont see what you point is.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever head of thre Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of180
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

57 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min EasyEed 1,072,989
Obama turns his back on black Americans 30 min BarrysBleachingSkinWants2 3
“If America Doesn’t Abolish the FED, the FED wi... 30 min TheDailySheeple 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 34 min Jacques from Ottawa 173,756
Mr. O'Reilly on the black / race issue. 34 min BillyO and the Race Pimps 9
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 47 min scirocco 68,169
The New, New Math 1 hr IfUReadUCTheProblem4Sure 6
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••